Robert's Rules of Order/Wright State University Lake Campus/Elections

Proposal

I propose that next year's elections proceed as is the present election, with the following minor changes:

1. The process starts at least one month earlier
2. All nominations require the consent of the nominated party, but that person may accept the nomination conditionally. Examples:
      -"I will run for president only if two candidates have not already been nominated."
      -"I will serve as secretary only if nobody else volunteers"
3. A rather complex set of rules be developed that makes the entire process transparent at one level, but preserves certain levels of confidentiality. These rules need to be carefully designed.

About these vaguely stated rules

I once attended a meal consisting of individuals that I shall describe as being of the X persuasion. There was one serving left on the plate, and one of the members offered it to a fellow member, who turned it down and proceeded to offer it to the person who made the offer. A third guest stated,

That's the X way: If you want something, offer it to somebody else.

The problem is that many if most faculty members are willing to serve, but few want to compete. While there is no technical distinction between self-nominating and volunteering, there is a tremendous psychological distinction.

So here is our dilemma: We want to encourage more people to volunteer, but we want to allow people to run conditionally. If we immediately announce the names as they are nominated, the announcement of the first candidate will suppress other volunteers. But if we don't announce the names, we have faculty members holding secrets.

One proposed solution

Nominate in two stages. In the first stage, individuals volunteer to serve, with (almost) nobody knowing who else has been nominated. Then, announce all the candidate names and allow people to withdraw their nominations. This will require a bit more time on the calendar, but would not require much effort on the part of those organizing the elections.

One advantage of this is that it lowers the threshold for being willing to serve if that offer can be withdrawn.

I suggest that both stages permit conditional acceptance of the nomination. In other words, at each stage, the candidate may say "I will run if there are fewer than X candidates". It will be necessary for one person to manage this so that the timing can be used to resolve competing requests. For example if there are 3 candidates for president, and two candidates withdraw on grounds that we only need two candidates, the only the first request to withdraw may be accepted.

Perhaps a better solution

It is not uncommon for a person to be willing to serve and then change their mind, so we should compensate by beginning the process early, and making it last for two months. Announce the nominations at a January meeting. It is important that the nominations not be announced during this first month because the first nomination will severely suppress further nominations. On the other hand, keeping secrets is futile, so instead we discourage discussion of who has been nominated, making it clear that the chair of G&B will make those names available upon request. Encourage people to nominate others, always with the understanding that the nomination must be made after the nominee has agreed.

The names of those who have been nominated should be announced one week before the February meeting in order to allow people to withdraw. Allow conditional withdrawals, i.e., "I will drop out if X other people are still running".

I propose that February be a "dead" month when names could be added or subtracted, even though there should be no need for such adjustments. Elections could begin after the March meeting.

Background

Our small faculty (about 32 members) faces a few challenges with the elections. We have experimented with the following methods:

1. Until a few years ago, two "elections" were held. The first contained all qualified members and served as a nominating ballot. There was no clear rule for selecting the runoff, and that not everybody who was nominated wanted to serve.
2. For approximately two years, this was replaced by unit-level nominations. The unit leaders are selected by the dean, and serve more as coordinators and have no administrative power (e.g. in evaluating fellow faculty members). The problem with unit-level nominations is that the units almost never meet. Our faculty so small that we do not have departments, but instead is divided up somewhat arbitrarily into four units. While we do offer a few 4-year degrees, many of our students transfer to the main campus to finish their degrees, so much of the activities associated with college departments never occurs. This led to a situation where nobody was nominated until the very last minute. On one occasion, the nominations came so late that there was no election.
3. This unit-level procedure is now evolving into a system of nomination by contacting either any unit head, or any member of the Governance & Bylaws committee (G&B). The chair of G&B coordinates the process by maintaining a list of nominees. Recently, the practice of requiring permission of the nominated party has been adopted. Individuals are also encouraged to self-nominate.